Niraj Verma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-

The applicant was recruited through UPSC as ADET (Assistant Divisional Engineer Telecom) of the 1987 batch and joined the Telecom Department as an ITS Group ‘A’ Officer on 20.02.1989. During the years 1994-1997, two charge-sheets were issued to him in connection with L&W maintenance works and purchase of CDOT cards/kits. Though the Inquiry Officer did not find the charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and imposed penalties upon him. The applicant challenged the said penalty orders before this Tribunal in OA No. 595/2000 and OA No. 594/2000. During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant tendered his resignation on 31.01.2002.

The applicant submitted that his resignation was never accepted by the respondents. On the contrary, vide letter dated 06.02.2004, the respondents had called upon him to resume duties. It is, however, an admitted position that the applicant did not rejoin thereafter. The applicant stated that the criminal proceedings arising out of the CBI case were pending and that, on account of the circumstances prevailing at that time, he could not resume his duties. The applicant was ultimately acquitted by the competent CBI Court on 21.12.2015.

The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 11.12.2017 and 02.01.2018, seeking permission to join duty and issuance of posting orders. According to the applicant, no action was taken on the said representations. It was also his case that his name continued to figure in the ITS Group ‘A’ seniority lists circulated from time to time, including the lists of 2011, 2014, 2016 and 2018. On these grounds, the applicant sought a direction to the respondents to permit him to join duty with all consequential monetary and seniority benefits.

The matter was heard at length on 21.04.2026 and 19.05.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s resignation had never been accepted and that the respondents themselves had called upon him to rejoin in 2004. It was submitted that, after his acquittal on 21.12.2015, the applicant had approached the respondents for being permitted to resume duty. Learned counsel also relied upon the RTI material, including the letter dated 18.02.2019, which indicated that the respondents had considered the cases of officers who were absent from duty for long periods and that, in respect of the applicant, a decision had been taken on 01.09.2017 to examine his case in consultation with the Vigilance Wing.

The applicant subsequently placed on record further documents/information obtained under the RTI Act, including information dated 26.07.2024. The respondents were directed to obtain instructions in respect of the said material and to place their response on record.

Thereafter, in their additional affidavit dated 07.08.2026, the respondents clarified that the applicant’s case had been included in the consideration of officers who had remained absent from duty for long periods and that, after the applicant had intimated his acquittal from the CBI Court on 25.08.2017, his case had been directed to be examined in consultation with the Vigilance Wing, DoT Headquarters. It was further stated that the applicant had thereafter submitted representations dated 11.12.2017, 02.01.2018 and 03.04.2018 seeking permission to join duty.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant could not be permitted to join in view of Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. According to the respondents, the applicant had remained absent from duty for more than five years and, therefore, his case was liable to be dealt with in terms of the said provision. It was further stated that, as per the records available with the respondents, the applicant’s name had been deleted from the civil list in 2020, treating his case as absconding with the approval of the competent authority.

Learned counsel for the respondents, in the written submissions, submitted that the applicant had been specifically requested to resume duties vide letter dated 06.02.2004, but he had failed to do so and had remained absent for more than five years. It was submitted that the applicant had approached the Tribunal only after a prolonged period and that there was no explanation for his failure to resume duty or to agitate his grievance before any competent forum during the intervening period. It was further submitted that the department had, in fact, initiated the process for considering the cases of officers who were on unauthorized absence, as reflected from the RTI material, and therefore it could not be said that no action had been taken by the respondents.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the applicant had tendered his resignation on 31.01.2002 and that the same had not been accepted by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that, vide communication dated 06.02.2004, the respondents had called upon the applicant to resume duties. Despite the said communication, the applicant admittedly did not rejoin service.

The explanation furnished by the applicant was essentially that criminal proceedings were pending against him and that he was under severe mental stress on account thereof. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the applicant was neither under arrest nor under any legal restraint preventing him from joining duty. More importantly, even after the respondents had specifically called upon him to resume duties in 2004, the applicant did not do so. Thereafter, he did not approach the respondents or this Tribunal for several years. His acquittal by the CBI Court came only on 21.12.2015, whereas his representations seeking to rejoin were made only in December 2017 and thereafter.

The fact that the respondents did not immediately bring the applicant’s service status to its logical conclusion also cannot, in the facts of the present case, lead to the conclusion that the applicant acquired an indefeasible right to resume duty after remaining away from service for such a prolonged period. The RTI material relied upon by the applicant itself showed that the respondents had been considering the cases of officers who had remained absent for long periods and that the applicant’s case had also been taken up for examination. The subsequent delay in concluding the matter, therefore, cannot efface the applicant’s own admitted failure to resume duty pursuant to the communication issued to him in 2004.

The applicant had also relied upon the fact that his name continued to appear in certain seniority lists. Such inclusion, by itself, cannot confer a right upon the applicant to resume duty after an unexplained and prolonged absence, particularly when the applicant admittedly did not report for duty despite being called upon to do so.

The respondents had relied upon Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. The said provision had been specifically invoked by the respondents in explaining the basis on which the applicant had not been permitted to join. Without entering into the question as to the precise stage at which the said provision was required to be invoked, the admitted factual position remains that the applicant had remained away from duty for more than a decade after being called upon to resume duty in 2004, without any satisfactory explanation for such prolonged non-joining.

The respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps to bring the matter to its logical conclusion after the applicant failed to resume duty pursuant to their communication of 06.02.2004. However, the respondents’ failure to do so cannot result in a situation where, after such a long lapse of time, the applicant is permitted to join service and claim consequential monetary and seniority benefits as a matter of right. The applicant had also not offered any satisfactory explanation as to why, even after his acquittal on 21.12.2015, he had waited until December 2017 to approach the respondents.

The present OA had thus been filed after a very long period, seeking to revive a service relationship in which the applicant had admittedly not worked since 2002. The applicant had been called upon to resume duties in 2004, yet had chosen not to do so. The subsequent acquittal in the criminal case, though relevant to the circumstances relied upon by the applicant, cannot by itself wipe out the prolonged period during which the applicant neither rendered service nor took timely steps for restoration of his service.

In view of what has been discussed herein above, we find no ground to issue a direction permitting the applicant to join duty at this stage or to grant him consequential monetary or seniority benefits.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand dismissed. No costs.